Investigative outline-bite investigation protocol



INVESTIGATING SERIOUS AND FATAL

DOG ATTACKS:

A Suggested Protocol

James W. Crosby CPDT

Canine Aggression Research

Jacksonville, FL

Journal, Institute for Continuing Legal Education

2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction: The Problem………………………………………………………………3

What do we do?..................................................................................................................4

How do we do it?................................................................................................................5

Assessing bites: the six level bite assessment tool………………………………………..5

Investigative Outline:

Immediate actions for First Responders………………………………………….9

Initial response-animals………………………………………………………….10

Initial response-human victims………………………………………………… 11

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….12

Appendices:

Appendix A: Bite Investigation, Huntington WV…………………………..... 13

Appendix B: Investigative worksheet from investigation, Huntington WV…….17

Contact Information:

James W. Crosby

904-476-7655

canineaggression@

canineaggression.

Introduction: The Problem

Every year in the United States nearly 5 million people suffer from a dog bite severe enough to send them seeking medical assistance. Statistics show that, by the time a child graduates High School there is a fifty-fifty chance they will have been bitten by a dog. On average, twenty one people in the US are killed by dogs.

Now, twenty one out of almost 300 million isn’t bad-but fatal dog attacks are certain headline grabbers. Serious non-fatal bites also draw attention, especially when you add a child victim and an identified “evil” breed, like a Pit Bull, to the mix. Guaranteed attention, guaranteed outrage on someone’s part, and typically caged dog video with sound bites.

Yet, despite the high profile of these cases, investigative standards for dog bite cases are, in some circles, lacking. Too often it is a case of “Yep, there’s a dog, there’s a body-must have been the dog.”

But a combination of public perception, as aided by the O.J. case and shows such as CSI, increasing civil litigation, and the new propensity for examining high profile dog attack cases for possible prosecution has upped the ante. Fatalities involving dogs should now address the same standards as any other form of homicide. Serious maulings carry the possibility of prison time and full trials. And public safety demands a better accounting.

For instance. A Midwestern dog attack fatality was blamed on the two large purebred dogs found in the back yard with the victim’s body. “Yep, the dogs did it!” At least until the investigating agency did some tests after calling for some advice. Despite all of the wounds on the victim, and despite the long, actively shedding fur of the suspect dogs, no canine hair was found in the wounds. Bite patterns did not match victim to either dog. DNA testing found neither dog had any human DNA, and the canine DNA from the wounds did not match either dog. Yet both dogs had already been euthanized, and the public there still believes that these two dogs committed this act. Meanwhile, the agency of record is A) hoping the actual killer dog never resurfaces, and B) that no-one locally ever finds out the real scoop.

It this where you hope to find your agency someday?

Take another instance. A small child’s body is found in a yard, brutally savaged by a large dog. Gaping, nasty wounds. The child is initially delivered to the hospital by the parent. Cause of death is found to be a broken neck, and everyone safely thinks “Yep, the dog did it!” Too bad when a sharp Medical Examiner just happens to notice that the bites were all post-mortem: the child was actually killed by a parent shaking the kid. The suspect (hate to use the word ‘parent’ here) then took the lifeless child out back and teased the dog to bite and tear the child’s body to cover their tracks. Prosecution may now be hampered by an inadequate investigation at the time of the incident-any attorney with half a brain cell could at least introduce reasonable doubt. Suspect walks, dog has already been euthanized. Justice swerved.

Ready to take the flack for this one?

What do we do?

No one is accusing any person or agency of being cavalier about dog bite investigation. In fact, ninety-nine percent of all of the bite investigations the average working ACO comes across are minor, clear cut, and need no major effort. Typically a human does something that, ultimately, turns out to be stupid, and the dog acts like a dog. Or an owner has been less than the best, the dog has learned bad behavior, and the behavior leads to a bite. Pretty simple.

But on those occasions that serious injury or a fatality are involved, we must kick up the level of investigation to meet the standard that the legal profession, and society, is beginning to demand. True, funding for animal investigations is nearly non-existent; that issue must be taken up with town, city, and county governments, and those bodies are typically non-responsive to our issues. But there are investigative steps that can be taken, and in serious cases the local law enforcement agencies may be able to assist. After all, a homicide is a homicide, even if the proximate cause of death is a dog attack.

And for those involved in litigation and liability issues, a detailed initial investigation can make the critical difference between a clear-cut case and one dependant only on guesses and innuendo.

The first step in all of this is to establish a plan of action that centers around an assessment of how serious a bite actually is. Subjectively every bite is bad. How bad needs to be clarified in an objective, quantifiable manner.

Dr. Ian Dunbar of California, veterinarian and behaviorist, originally developed a six-level bite assessment based on his experience and study. I have adapted that assessment tool slightly, as shown in Appendix A. This assessment tool uses the number of bites, depth of tooth puncture, and presence of cues such as tearing, bruising, and tissue damage to classify dog bites. This ranges from Level 1, a no-contact incident, to Level 6, a human fatality. This assessment tool gives investigators, attorneys, judges, and litigants a solid basis for comparison. No longer will it depend on how many sutures a surgeon decides to place in a wound. Horrible accounts of blood and guts won’t matter. We will have a simple, clear, quantifiable tool by which we can compare and evaluate bites.

This leads to the ability to establish investigative plans. For instance we can say that any bite of Level 3 or less can be handled by a simple, casual investigation. Basic documentation is needed, but detailed testing and analysis is unnecessary. Level 4 and 5 we investigate closely, bringing on line most of our procedure, perhaps even taking all the recommended samples and data, but storing them without full testing and analysis to save a bit of money, unless future events show that the data is needed. A Level 6 bite-we pull out all of the stops.

How do we do it?

I have developed a tentative set of investigative protocols and questions that I feel will materially aid the investigation of these cases. These suggestions come from my years as a Police Officer and from the investigations I have done into serious and fatal bites. Some of these are pretty straightforward. Some of these have come after an investigation when a question came up and I was caught flatfooted, unable to answer. Some of this stuff seems pretty esoteric and maybe irrelevant, but behaviorally it is information that I am selfishly hoping we can amass downstream to aid in analyzing why these attacks happen, and perhaps developing preventative measures to reduce the number and frequency of these incidents.

Assessing bites

To adequately assess and compare bites we must get beyond the idea of terming them such things as “pretty bad” or “really messy”. Number of sutures is often used, but comparing bites by comparing treatment is not valid. A large bite to a person’s buttocks might get a couple of staples (unless the victim is an underwear model), where a fairly small bite to a child’s face will certainly get the full attention of a reconstructive surgeon. Instead, comparison based on similar identifying characteristics, coupled with related behavior, gives us a clear, common reference to coolly evaluate a dog attack.

The system that I propose is an adaptation of one developed by Dr. Ian Dunbar DVM, CPDT of Berkeley, California.2

Dr. Dunbar is the founder of the Association of Pet Dog Trainers, a national professional organization for dog trainers. During his studies, Dr. Dunbar was able to separate and classify bites into a generalized six-level assessment protocol.

The six-level dog bite assessment

The six-level dog bite assessment is as follows:

Level 1-Dog growls, barks, lunges, snarls-no teeth touch skin. Mostly intimidation behavior.

Level 2-Teeth touch skin but no puncture. May have red mark/minor bruise from dog’s head or snout making contact.

Level 3-Puncture wounds, no more than ½ the length of the dog’s canine tooth, one to four holes, single bite. No tearing or slashes. Victim not shaken side to side. Probable bruising.

Level 4-One to four holes from a single bite, one hole deeper than ½ the length of a canine tooth, typically with contact or punctures from more than just the canines only. Deep tissue bruising, tears and/or slashing wounds. Dog clamped down and held, shook or slashed victim.

Level 5-Multiple bites at Level 4 or above. A concerted, repeated attack.

Level 6-Any bite resulting in the death of a human.

To the initial skeleton drawn by Dr. Dunbar I have added behavioral notes. Let us look at each of these assessment levels and what they mean, functionally and behaviorally.

Level 1: Dog growls, barks, lunges, snarls-no teeth touch skin. Mostly intimidation behavior.

This behavior is often the initial negative contact between a human and a dog, and is probably the most common. A person, friendly or not, approaches a dog and the dog responds by growling, barking, and possibly lunging, and in general scares the stew out of the targeted human. Said human typically backs off immediately. This is a perfect example of clear and concise interspecies communication. For whatever reason the dog is alarmed by the human’s approach. The dog gives external signals, audible and visible, that he/she does not want any further advance by the human. The human acknowledges those signals and retreats.

Is this aggression? Possibly, but it is more likely that this is simply a dog communicating; fear, alarm, territorial defense.

Dogs have an extensive vocabulary of communication tools. Some of these are audible, but many are nonverbal. The signals that a dog uses to convey fear or aggression can seem similar to humans. Growling, snarling, barking-these are all audible signals. These are all means of the dog saying, “You are bothering me-you may be threatening me-you may be frightening me-BACK OFF!” The dog reacting to a stranger may be frightened or intimidated by the stranger. An animal’s usual reaction to a perceived threat is to first seek to retreat to a safe distance. In a dog’s case that may not be possible. The dog may be on a leash, enclosed in a small space, or tethered out on a chain. Since an animals reaction on perceiving a threat is to either flee or fight, the dog may sense that his/her avenues of flight have been removed. Thus, the dog is giving fair warning that any further approach is not within his/her comfort zone, and that the intruding party needs to give the dog some safe space.

This is not clearly aggression. Given the opportunity to withdraw, the dog may quickly calm down and show a reduction in excitement. Ten feet further away the growling and lunging may abate completely. We understand that this is intimidating and scary to humans, but if they back off the dog has actually communicated clearly. Is this dog a dangerous dog? Probably not.

Level 2-Teeth touch skin but no puncture. May have red mark/minor bruise from dog’s head or snout making contact.

This behavior is becoming a bit more serious. This is the first level of actual physical contact between dog and human. Many dog bites never proceed past this point, and many of these do not seek medical treatment.

Is this aggression? Let us look at this bite from the viewpoint of dog/dog and dog/human interaction.

In canine communication of alarm or fear, the barking/lunging stage is merely the first level of warning. A dog that gets no relief from the first level proceeds in an ordered manner to the next level. That next level may best be termed “engage and release”.

At this stage the dog makes a single thrust at the intruding target, snapping once and withdrawing. This attack is decidedly brief: dogs are fast enough to strike as many as three times in a single second. The engagement of the dog’s teeth is, however, controlled. Scratches and/or bruising may be the result of the dog pushing back off the target, or from simple blunt snout contact.

Dogs have an incredible ability to control the strength of their bite. Pups learn bite inhibition and control in the litter, both from their dam and from their littermates during play. This is not only a social skill, it is a survival skill. Imagine the effect on long-term species survival if every bite produced an open wound or serious injury.

Bite control and inhibition considered, this is still a clear case of communication, akin to a human parent giving a child a good swat on the rear for an infraction. Despite the contact with teeth, this is not a clearly aggressive attack.

Level 3-Puncture wounds, no more than ½ the length of the dog’s canine tooth, one to four holes, single bite. No tearing or slashes. Victim not shaken side to side. Probable bruising.

Again, we move another rung up the force matrix. Not only do teeth contact skin, but injury results. This is, however, still a single bite. The key here is no tearing or slashing, no clamping down, no repeated contact; the victim is not dragged, pulled or shaken.

The true difference between this bite and a level two bite is the presence of clear injury. One or more canine teeth actually pierce the skin of the target.

Is this aggression? Maybe, but again maybe not. This attack shows lesser bite control that the Level 2 attack, as the skin in broken, but it is still within the range of an engage-and-withdraw action. The dog here may have lesser bite control due to inadequate socialization as a pup, may have a higher level of excitement or fear, or may have suppressed bite inhibition due to medication.

This is, however, the highest level of bite normally encountered. And the animals involved in a bite of Level 1,2, or 3 are those with the greatest chance of being safely retained by their owners, provided appropriate training and behavioral guidance is obtained.

Level 4-One to four holes from a single bite, one hole deeper than ½ the length of a canine tooth, typically with contact or punctures from more than just the canines only. Deep tissue bruising, tears and/or slashing wounds. Dog clamped down and held, shook or slashed victim.

Now we get to the good stuff. This is a major bite. The dog involved in this bite was definitely serious about damaging his/her target. This may be defensive behavior from a threatened animal; it may be predatory behavior leading into a kill; this may be aggressive behavior precipitated by territorial concerns or resource guarding. In any case, this level of a bite requires a detailed investigation, both physical and behavioral. A full account of the bite and the circumstances leading up to the bite is essential. At this point we may well be dealing with a dangerous, or potentially dangerous, dog. Simple control measures and obedience classes are probably not sufficient to allow this dog to remain in the general population. For the owner to be allowed to retain this dog clear measures must be taken to insure that the dog does not pose a threat to the safety of the public. Stringent, legally mandated levels of liability insurance, secure containment, closely supervised public contact and measures such as mandatory muzzling are appropriate. This dog may never bite again: but if it does, the likelihood is there that it will be another major bite. This dog may well have learned to manipulate its owners and others through the use of aggression and force. An investigation into a Level 4 bite must examine whether the bite was provoked. If this bite was provoked, the dog must have at least perceived that it was experiencing a life-threatening situation for me to consider less than full protective measures for the community.

Level 5-Multiple bites at Level 4 or above. A concerted, repeated attack.

This is the highest level of bite that most of us will ever see. This is the proverbial “chain saw with feet”. There is no question that this is a full-scale aggressive attack. The animal in this type of incident is attacking with full intent to do massive damage to its intended target. There is no question of inter-species communication here-this is for all the marbles.

An animal that is identified in this sort of attack, unless a trained police dog that is apprehending a combative suspect (a completely separate subject), is clearly a danger to the public, and to its owners. This animal is out of control. Full sanctions from local Animal Control authorities are appropriate, and the owners should generally be held fully responsible for the consequences of the animal’s behavior. There is, in my opinion, no justification for the retention of such an animal by the average owner. Consideration of provocation may be in order in such a case, but the provocation must amount to a clear, immediate and unrelenting threat to the dog’s life to be seriously considered.

Level 6-Any bite resulting in the death of a human.

Although this seems to be an easy category to address, there are some complications. This level is not necessarily composed of those Level 5 attacks that go on, unabated, until the human or dog are dead. These attacks are simply those that directly result in the death of a human. Period.

There are those that would argue against lumping all fatal incidents together. After all, a single bite by a dog that happens to nick a major blood vessel could conceivably directly result in that person’s death. Other possibilities are always out there. And the common misconception that “once a dog has tasted blood they will attack again…” is utter nonsense. Propensity to attack is based on behavior, genetics, socialization, and a host of other factors. “Blood lust” is more suited to Hollywood.

But dog bite related fatalities present unusual challenges. For an incident of dog/human contact to result in the demise of the human is very rare. The CDC relates that an average of less than twenty fatal bites occur in the US each year.3 More people are actually killed each year by cattle and lightning strike.4 But dog bites get the press coverage. Stories of dogs mauling and killing people guarantee high visibility reportage.

This brings on two distinct sets of problems. First we must consider liability. If in such a fatal attack the dog was returned to the owners by a government agency or publicly or privately funded Humane organization, if that dog was ever involved in another, even dissimilar incident, the releasing agency would undoubtedly be faced with litigation. This litigation, even if unproductive, would be costly both in dollars and in public trust.

Secondly, there are those persons out there who would proudly adopt a dog involved in a fatal attack. Known by some as the “Bubba factor”, the attraction to these dogs by the testosterone-driven, sensibility-impaired segment of our population is undeniable, with an incalculable potential cost to the rest of society. Dog fighters in particular would be drawn to a dog with enough “game” to have taken down a human, and street-level thugs and fighters would see these dogs as tokens of their personal power.

Thus, it is my strong recommendation that any and all dogs involved in dog bite related fatalities are destroyed as a matter of policy. This policy is unfortunate, and possible unfair to the dogs and owners. Yet the difficulties broached above make this almost a necessity.

Investigative outline-bite investigation protocol

Immediate actions for First Responders

1) Secure the scene from contamination. Exclude unnecessary personnel. Identify condition of victim and of suspect animal(s). If animal(s) alive, contain safely.

2) Identify and secure potential witnesses. Separate them from each other and from the immediate scene.

3) Exclude media from filming victim or actual scene until after all processing and removal is complete.

Initial response-animals

1) Observe animal(s) demeanor while handling immediate tasks. Take notes. How are they acting towards EMS workers? Others? Each other? Are they aggressive, fearful, quiet? Watch for unusual behaviors-excessive salivation, chewing on selves or unusual objects. Vomiting? Try to prevent animal(s) from eating or drinking before capture and testing.

2) Physically capture/secure the animal(s) and separate. MAKE SURE YOU ARE FULLY GLOVED BEFORE YOU TOUCH THE ANIMAL TO AVOID CONTAMINATING WITH HUMAN DNA. Do not secure multiple animals in same kennel. Insure they are placed in clean kennel.

3) If animal(s) vomited or defecated at the scene collect for analysis.

4) Your next priority is sample collection. Animal(s) may have to be sedated to safely handle-if so document type and dosage of sedative. Once animal(s) is safely restrained and docile, collect DNA swabs of upper and lower jaw area of each animal. Examine animal for visible signs of blood or fluids on fur. If any is seen, either use swabs to collect or cut and collect fur in the stained areas. If possible re-examine for further stains or fluids using ultraviolet lamp. Have a veterinarian evacuate the stomach of each animal and save the contents separately for testing for human tissue or DNA. Document any pieces of tissue visible in the stomach contents-suggest labeling as “potential tissue-unknown origin” unless you are absolutely sure it is human tissue-the tests will positively identify it later. Have blood samples from each dog collected and preserved for testing. Two five-milliliter tubes for each animal should be sufficient.

5) If the animal is deceased at the scene, the same samples must be collected. A veterinarian or Medical Examiner can dissect the stomach for contents, etc. Use a clean body bag to transport the animal after external samples are taken to avoid contamination. Try to avoid using simple trash bags, blankets, etc. If you have to cover the animal during scene processing, use a clean sheet from EMS and retain the sheet with the body after transport. Blood samples must also be collected from each animal and should be gathered by a veterinarian or technician using care to prevent contamination of the sample.

6) Once samples are collected from the animal they must be securely identified. Check for micro chipping. If animal is not micro chipped, have veterinarian immediately microchip each involved animal and use chip numbers to label all samples for continuity. Simple photos are not enough-you don’t want to lose evidence because of a questioned identification of the dog.

7) If animal is alive then transport and secure properly at Animal Control facility. An animal involved or implicated in a fatality must not be allowed to remain in the custody of the owners during the investigation. These animal(s) must be securely and separately contained. Keep them apart from other animals and each other. Only a limited number of experienced Animal Control personnel should be allowed direct contact with these animals.

8) If at all possible, even if the owners request or permit euthanasia, keep the animals alive for evaluation by a behavior expert. Observation and evaluation of the animals may give valuable information regarding recreating the incident. Most jurisdictions provide for a ten-day observation period for rabies control-don’t be in a hurry to destroy the animals.

9) If the animal is deceased at the scene and rabies testing is needed, please request that the State Lab use only the minimum brain tissue needed for their testing and return the rest of the brain. Also ask them to retain and return the animal’s head, keeping chain of custody, so that bite impressions and comparisons can be made. Brain tissue is best quick-frozen, preferable within twelve hours of the animal’s death, and stored in deep freeze. The animal’s brain should be examined by a skilled veterinarian for evidence of lesion or physical abnormality that may have affected the animal’s behavior.

a) NOTE: If Law Enforcement personnel are forced to destroy the animal at the scene for safety reasons, please instruct them to shoot for center of body mass, not a head shot. Heads are a small, moving target, well armored, and damage to the brain and jaw of the dog may limit information needed for full investigation.

Initial response-human victim(s)

1) Treat the scene like any homicide: control access, protect evidence, prevent contamination. REMEMBER-HUMAN HOMICIDE SUSPECTS MAY USE A DOG ATTACK/DOG CAUSED DAMAGE TO CONCEAL A MURDER.

2) Take as many samples as possible on the scene, before the body is disturbed. If the body is undisturbed seek blood, tissue, hair, and other fluids in the immediately surrounding area.

3) Limit access to the body and the general scene until after photos have been taken. The disturbed ground around the scene may give clues to the event, such as fleeing footsteps, initial impact with the ground and subsequent dragging, etc. Document the physical scene in detail. Look for evidence that may indicate an additional animal involved, such as blood stains going up to a fence, etc.

4) Collect samples of fluids, tissue, hair and fibers from the surrounding area. A person may actually be killed in one place and then dragged, sometimes by an animal that did not participate in the actual death. Once a human is dead other animals have no more regard for a human body than for any other carrion.

5) Have the Medical Examiner take swab samples from within the wounds. Canine DNA can be individually compared and identified, so the dog that inflicted a specific bite can be identified.

6) Have detailed photos, including reference measurements, taken of all bite wounds. Such photos can be compared later with bite molds and documentation to determine which dog bit where.

7) Ask the Medical Examiner to identify, as far as possible, the bite(s) that are the proximate cause of death, along with which bites are pre-mortem, and which tissue damage was post-mortem. A dog that may have inflicted damage after death that did not participate in the actual killing. Also, cases have occurred wherein people were murdered, then the body was placed with dogs and they were induced to bite the dead person to confuse or obscure the actual mode of death.

8) Document any scratches, dirt marks, or other non-fatal wounds to determine whether there are indicative of flight, defense, etc.

Conclusion

I realize that there are as many styles of investigation as there are investigators. I do not presume to tell anyone the “right” way of doing their investigation. I do wish to encourage agencies, investigators, and others to establish a higher standard for investigations of all kinds as relates to dogs, dog bites, and dog issues. After all, a misdetermination of cause or fault in such an investigation can easily lead to consequences far beyond the academic. People’s lives are affected, their safety can be impacted, and in the case of dangerous dog laws and consequences people’s property can be taken, potential income affected, and companions destroyed. We owe it to ourselves, our constituents and clients, and our animal companions to do it right the first time. Although pets are not people, their owners are and they deserve the same consideration we would give to any crime victim or accused person.

APPENDIX A

Bite investigation, Huntington West Virginia, 17 May 2005.

Dog Bite/Incident Report

Victim: Arianna Fleeman, WF, 2 yrs old.

Address of incident;

210 Buffington St.

Huntington, WV

Subject dog;

Staffordshire Terrier

Age; approximately 3 years (born approximately July 9, 2002)

Reproductive status; non-neutered

Color; fawn and white

Weight; approximately 80 lbs.

Details of incident;

On 17 May 2005, Huntington WV EMS received a call to 210 Bluffington St., Huntington, WV regarding a dog attack.

Officers arriving discovered that a dog living at the residence had bitten victim Arianna Fleeman. Victim Fleeman died from the wounds received in that attack. Also bitten in the attack was Brittany Fleeman, mother of Arianna Fleeman.

Investigation;

On 22 May 2005 I interviewed Eric Mason and Sara Mason, 222 Bluffington St., Huntington WV, neighbors and associates of Donald Brewer, owner of the dog.

Sara Mason explained that on the day of the attack she was present in the Brewer’s home. She picked up children Arianna Fleeman, age 2, and Neairah Fleeman, age 3, from the Brewers’ and walked them to a nearby store. When Sara returned to the Brewers’ home, Pam Brewer, Brittany Fleeman, and a female know only to Sara as “KK” were on the front porch. The outer door to the porch was open, but the inner door to the actual house was closed. Sara left Arianna and Neairah with the adults on the porch and walked the several houses down the street to her house. Sara said that she did not see any of the Brewers’ dogs when she picked up the children or when she left them.

Sara returned to the Brewers’ home a short while later to discover EMS on the scene, and learned that Arianna had been killed by the male dog known as Brutus. According to Sara, she was aware that Brutus was under quarantine for biting Eric Mason, and she stated that she believed that all of the adults present at the Brewers’ home were likewise aware.

Sara stated that, before the attack, she had been a frequent guest in the Brewers’ home. Sara said that every time she had been in the house the dogs were upstairs, secured in a room with an external hasp on the door and a portable baby gate across the stairway. Sara said that she had interacted with both Brutus and Porsche before Eric Mason was bitten by Brutus with no difficulty.

Sara stated that the dog Brutus had bitten several people to her knowledge. She said that Pam Brewer’s son Chris Smith (WM-21 or 22 years old) was bitten about a year before the attack on Eric Mason. Sara said that she had observed scarring on Mr. Smith, and that the dog bite had been to Mr. Smith’s lower ribs and side. Sara also said that a Mr. Aaron Scaggs (sp?), WM-approximately 22 had been bitten on the side of the chest and ribs, and that Donnie Brewer had also been bitten by Brutus. According to Sara, Donnie Brewer had been bitten in the forearm and “…had to beat the dog off.” Sara also indicated that a Jason Adams had been previously bitten by the dog, again in the ribs and side.

I then spoke with Eric Mason. Mr. Mason explained that he had been bitten by Brutus, and had reported that bite to the Huntington Police and Animal Control.

According to Eric, the bite by Brutus happened when he was at the Brewers’ home. Eric, who was also a regular guest at the Brewers’, walked into the house as normal. Brutus was loose, approached Eric and sniffed him, and then walked away. Eric went back outside the Brewers’ house and found Pam Brewer and Sara Mason in a loud altercation on the sidewalk. Eric said he picked up his two-year old son Brandon in his arms and went back into the house to get Donnie Brewer and alert him to the argument outside. After Eric told Donnie what was happening outside, Eric turned back toward the door. Eric said that Brutus charged from behind and to his right side, struck Eric in the right side and ribs with his teeth and bit down. Eric stated that the force of the bite, coupled with the force of the dog’s motion, forced him to the ground. Eric said that when he went to the ground he curled up around his son Brandon to protect him. Eric said that Brutus continued to bite and clamp down on Eric until Donnie Brewer forced Brutus’ jaws apart with his hands and got the dog to release Eric. Eric said that Donnie then restrained the dog physically to allow Eric to get away. Eric stated that there was no warning from Brutus, through growling, barking or other sign he recognized, prior to the full attack.

I also interviewed Donnie and Pam Brewer about both bite incidents.

Donnie Brewer said that he had gotten Brutus as a puppy of about five weeks of age. Brutus came from a friend of Mr. Brewer’s son in Texas while he (Brewer) was stationed at Ft. Hood. According to Brewer, the rest of Brutus’ litter had died from a Parvo infection. According to Mr. Brewer Brutus was not aggressive, but would respond to aggression in kind. Mr. Brewer said that he got Brutus for protection, and that although the dog had never received protection training, he had “…taught the dog to protect his wife and house.” Mr. Brewer stated that his son had wanted to fight Brutus, but that Mr. Brewer would not allow the dog to be fought. According to Mr. Brewer, Brutus was habitually kept in the house and in the yard. Brewer also stated that Brutus was the sire of a litter of pups that was being kept upstairs at the Brewer home at the time of the attack on Arianna Fleeman. At the time of the Fleeman attack the pups were, according to Brewer, about a week old and that there were at that time eleven live pups-two had died after birth. The mother of the pups was a dog named Porsche, who was also a daughter of Brutus (line bred).

In regard to the bite to Eric Mason, Brewer said that Eric had run into the house yelling and waving his arms excitedly and that the dog Brutus had responded by “..jumping him.”

As to the attack on Arianna Fleeman, Brewer first said that he had told all visitors that Brutus was under quarantine and that they should not enter the house. Brewer also stated that he always kept the dogs away from children and put them away whenever visitors came in the house. He said the dogs were kept upstairs behind a baby gate and in the bedroom. Brewer also said he did not allow Brutus outside the front of the house.

Pam Brewer said that, just before the attack on Arianna Fleeman, the girls were inside the house in the living room and that Brutus was outside in the back. She told the girls to go out on the front porch, and when the girls did so Pam let Brutus into the house, at which time Brutus laid on the couch in the living room.

Pam said that when the girls were on the porch Arianna said “Big doggie inside”. Pam said she told the girls not to go in the house. Pam said she and Donnie then left the house to give a business estimate, with the two children on the porch with Brittany and Kayla Harris; Brutus was inside the house. Pam and Donnie both said that when they returned to the house the attack had already taken place.

I then spoke to Brittany Fleeman, mother of victim Arianna Fleeman. According to Brittany, she and her daughters, Arianna and Neairah, were guests at the Brewers’ home just before the attack. Pam and Donnie Brewer had left to give a person a business estimate, and she was on the front porch of the Brewers’ home with her daughters and Kayla Harris. Brittany said that she was accustomed to being at the Brewers’ home, and that she did not know that the dog Brutus was loose in the house-he was typically kept upstairs behind a gate.

Brittany said she went into the Brewers’ kitchen to get the girls something to eat. Kayla was in the kitchen at the stove. Brittany said that Brutus ran past her and jumped up on Neairah. Brittany said she told Brutus to get off Neairah and he immediately complied. Brittany said that Arianna said, “Doggie likes me”, and that Brutus then jumped up on Arianna with his paws on her shoulders, knocking her to the floor, face down. Brittany said that Arianna then made a soft whine or cry and Brutus immediately grabbed her from behind, biting her in the mid-section and holding tightly. Brittany said she then tried to scoop Arianna off the floor, but Brutus had a strong grip on Arianna and began tugging and shaking the child. Brutus adjusted his bite to hold Arianna behind the neck and began shaking the child violently from side to side. Brittany said that she repeatedly yelled at the dog to let the child go, but the dog continued to shake and bite the child. Brittany said that the dog never released his grip on Arianna until the firefighters began beating on the front door of the residence. Brutus then, according to Brittany, became aggressive toward the firefighters and had to be beaten back with a metal fire extinguisher tank.

Brittany did say that she had been told before the attack that the dog had bitten Eric Mason. She said that she did not know, prior to the attack on her daughter, that the dog had bitten other people also. She said she knew that Brutus and Porsche were big dogs and might knock down the children, but that she had no history to warn her that either dog might attack.

Medical Examiner’s Report:

An autopsy of Arianna Fleeman was conducted at the Office of the Medical Examiner, 701 Jefferson Rd., Charleston, WV. Cause of death was listed as multiple lacerated punctures. An overview of the injuries shows multiple bite marks on the head, chest and abdomen of the victim. Major injuries include separation of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th cervical vertebra, full separation of the cervical spinal cord, and transection of the right and left jugular veins and carotid arteries. Full report attached.

Conclusion:

Based on the accounts provided of the incident and the history given regarding the dog Brutus, it is my opinion that this was a predatory attack by a dangerous animal that resulted in the death of a two-year-old child, Arianna Fleeman. The attack combined a firm bite with head shaking from side to side in a deliberate manner, consistent with canine killing behavior. The attack occurred without apparent clear audible warning, and continued unabated until such time as an outside factor (the arrival of firefighters) interrupted the behavior. The dog held on and refused to relinquish his ‘prize’ to Brittany Fleeman, despite her orders to release and trying to pull the child away.

It is further clear that the owners of the dog, Pam and Donnie Brewer, were aware or should have been aware of the previous history of this dog as regards biting humans. Five (5) humans were reportedly bitten by Brutus before the attack on Arianna Fleeman, including one serious documented attack on Eric Mason. The bite to Eric Mason was likewise a strong predatory attack, with clamping and shaking involved, signals that should have warned the Brewers of the dangerous nature of their dog.

In addition, since the dog Brutus was under ordered quarantine for the attack on Mason at the time of the attack on Arianna Fleeman, the owners should have reasonably been expected to exercise additional restraint and control of the dog during the quarantine period. This did not occur; the dog was neither contained in the bedroom as was usual, placed in the back fenced yard, nor did the Brewers even lock the front door of the house to insure that no one could have unsupervised contact with the dog.

APPENDIX B: Suggested Investigative Worksheet-example using information from Huntington WV fatal attack.

Dog bite investigative worksheet

Agency-Huntington Police, Huntington WV

Case number 2005-12

Bite level classification: Level 6 (fatality)

Date 17 May 2005 Time

Location of attack. 210 Buffington St., Huntington, WV

Number of dogs involved in the attack (1)

Nature of location (inside, outside, etc.) Indoors

Lighting. Indoor lighting

Weather at the time of the attack. Clear

Dog name Brutus

Breed Staffordshire Terrier (undocumented identification)

Sex Male

Age 3 years (9 July 2002)

Color, markings Fawn with white

Height Unknown

Weight 80 lbs.

Owner name, address Donald Brewer

210 Buffington St.

Huntington, WV

Owner Race W Sex M

Disposition of dog

Euthanized by Huntington/Cabell Animal Services, 17 May 2005.

Euthasol solution, administered intravenously.

Authorized by owner.

Source of dog-name/address

Not provided

Type of source (breeder, pet store, etc.) Breeder

Number of previous homes 0

Parents known? No

Parents owners-full info (supplementary case numbers) Unknown

Parents available for exam/interview? No

Parents source-name/address Not available

Parents source type Unknown

Siblings known? No

Sibling owners name/address of each N/A

Siblings available for exam/interview? No

Reproductive status of dog Intact

Ever bred? Yes

If female, is dog in estrus/recently been in/expected to be in soon? N/A

Identity/location of progeny Eleven pups on site. Other offspring, location unknown, other than dog Junior, living nearby.

Illness/injury? No

Describe if yes.

Vaccine history Vaccines current.

Is dog currently on any medication? No

If yes describe

Hearing? Good

Eyesight? Good

Hip conditions? Never evaluated-displayed no signs of dysfunction.

Blood tests;

Samples taken-Date: Time:

By whom?

Fresh or post mortem?

Chem/CBC

Thyroid

Steroids

Testosterone

Amphetamines/stimulants

Hormones

Body condition/musculoskeletal Excellent-

Parasites None noted

Brain:

Harvested? Yes

Date, time, by whom. West Virginia State Health Department

Freshly post mortem or delayed? Delayed, twelve hours approximately.

Gross exam Normal

Rabies tested Yes-clear

How preserved. Frozen after rabies tissue harvest.

Has dog had training? None formal. Owner stated he “trained the dog to protect his home and wife.”

By whom, when, where, type. Training type unknown, self-trained by owner.

Any earned titles? No

If yes list:

Used as:

Guard dog Personal guarding use-extent undetermined.

Military dog No

Police dog No

Schutzhund No

Has dog ever been fought? Undetermined. Owner denies, but does admit his adult son wished to fight the dog. Unable to verify if fighting or fight training actually occurred.

Living conditions-

Type of neighborhood. Single family semi-urban.

Type of residence. Single family detached.

Containment: Fence and privacy fence. Some tethering, extent undetermined.

Primarily kept indoors or outdoors. Both. Dog kept in back yard but free access to home.

Sleeping arrangements. Variable, indoors and outdoors.

Diet Unknown

Fed by Donald Brewer

Where, how often Once daily

Who disciplines dog. Donald Brewer

Usual method. Verbal and physical correction.

Who has most frequent interaction with dog. Donald and Pam Brewer

Does dog have regular contact with other dogs? No, other than female Porsche kept at home.

Type, duration, frequency, location Regular contact with female breeding partner in home and yard.

Has dog shown aggression toward other dogs/animals? Yes

Describe fully Dog has bitten five (5) adults in the past (documented), all bite of Level 4 or higher. Dog may have also previously bitten a child in Texas, not verified at this time. Dog has shown open aggression towards neighbors through fence displays-barking, growling, snarling, charging fence.

Family;

Type/ Family makeup. 2 resident adults(husband and wife). Regular visitors.

Basic dynamics Married home with grown children.

Quantity of contact with human family/quality. Constant contact with family.

Aggression toward family members? Yes-dog has bitten owner and owner’s adult son.

Contact with other humans:

How often? Daily

Where? At home

Adults, children, infants? All

Differing races? No-all white.

Disabled persons? Unknown

Aggression towards other humans:

Adults Yes

Children or infants? Unknown

Races Unknown

Disabilities? Unknown

Males vs. females? All adult attacks have been to males.

Bite incident victim information;

Name Arianna Fleeman, WF 2 years

Address

Sex F Race W Height 3 feet Weight 33 lbs.

If female, was victim menstruating at the time of the attack. No

Relationship of victim to owner: Parents are associates of owner.

Relationship to dog. None

Was victim disabled or ill? No

Under treatment for mental disability? No

Any unusual physical attributes? No Describe.

Does victim have a history of seizures? No

Does victim have a hinstory of heart disease? No

Victim dress at the time of the attack? T-shirt/nightshirt, panties.

Victim’s actions immediately before the attack. Entered house, walking with mother. Victim may have been intimidated by dog and tried to avoid contact after dog jumped up on victim’s 5 year old sister. Victim turned and walked away from dog. Victim may have whined/cried softly immediately before the attack.

Was victim known to the dog? Yes

Did victim have contact with the dog prior to this incident? Yes

Prior aggressive contact? None reported.

Witnesses to the incident? Yes

Name “Kayla” Full identity unknown.

Address Unknown

Telephone Unknown

Details of the actual attack-sequence of events, response of victim, dog, and witnesses.

Victim, her mother, and her five year old sister, entered the house at 210 Buffington St. by the front door. The threesome walked to the kitchen/living room area of the ground floor of the house. The dog was initially asleep on the couch in the living room.

The dog followed the three into the kitchen area, and jumped up on the five year old child, placing his paws on the five year old’s shoulders. The five year old child successfully pushed the dog off, telling him “Get down.” The victim turned and walked away from the dog and the five year old child. Victim may have whimpered or been crying softly. The dog went over to the victim and grasped her with his jaws from behind. The dog then began shaking the victim side to side and bit the victim repeatedly. Victim’s mother attempted to pull the child away from the dog, but the dog clamped down harder and refused to release the child. The mother tried hitting the dog with various objects, with negative results. The dog finally released the victim’s body when arriving EMS workers struck the dog several times with a metal fire extinguisher.

Exact injuries to victim. Order of injuries if established. The victim’s neck is fractured. There are clusters of bite marks noted on the anterior, posterior, and bilateral aspects of the neck, face, anterior chest and back, the smallest measuring 1/4” and the largest measuring 2 ½” in length.

The injuries on the right and left side of the neck, as well as right posterior lower head on the right occipital region are deeper injuries causing transection of the right and left jugular veins and carotid arteries with separation of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th cervical vertebra and complete transection of the spinal cord. (Continued, from the Medical Examiners’ report).

Details of any injuries to the dog, including when in the course of the attack injuries occurred.

None

Was the attack on dog’s home territory or in a place familiar to the dog?

Attack occurred in the dog’s home.

Witness interview covering similar questions-what did victim do, what did the dog do, what did owner/other bystanders do.

Sequence of events was obtained in interview with the victim’s mother.

Were there other animals present or involved in the attack?

Other dogs (female and eleven pups) present at the time of the attack, but were isolated in the upstairs of the house and not part or party to the incident.

Full information and actions of each one.

Adult female “Staffordshire Terrier” named Porsche and eleven puppies, age of puppies one week.

Relationship of other dogs to the victim and to the primary dog.

No relation to victim. Female (Porsche) bred to involved male dog (Brutus), puppies offspring of involved male dog and adult female.

Crime scene photos-attached

Detailed crime scene diagram-attached

Detailed physical description of scene-attached

Behavioral evaluation of dog: Unable-dog euthanized before investigation.

Date, time, location of evaluation-location type

Physical demeanor of dog at initial contact

Response when approached

Initial body language cues

Challenges/aggressive responses

Level of confidence (1-5)

Response to challenges

Responses of dog to stimuli (if available):

GR-growl RR-retreat/run away

BT-bare teeth SR-submissive roll or urination

LU-lunge/charge AG-evacuate anal gland

SB-snap/bite-engage and release PR-Positive reaction

BF-full bite NR-No reaction

NA-Not available

|Pet dog | |Bend over dog/demand down | |

|Hug dog | |Enter or leave room | |

|Kiss dog | |Reach toward dog w/o leash | |

|Call off furniture | |Reach toward dog w/leash | |

|Push/pull off furniture | |Put on/take off leash | |

|Approach on furniture | |Put on/take off collar | |

|Disturb while resting/sleeping | |Place in crate/pen | |

|Approach while chewing/playing | |Remove from crate/pen | |

|Approach while eating | |Leash restraint | |

|Touch while eating | |Collar restraint | |

|Take dog food away | |Bathe/groom dog | |

|Take human food away | |Trim nails | |

|Take toy/chewy/bone | |Response to obedience command | |

|Verbally correct | |Veterinary clinic visit | |

|Physically punish | |Strange adult enter house/yard | |

|Stare at dog | |Strange child enter house/yard | |

|Response to familiar dog on leash | |Familiar adult enter house/yard | |

|Response to strange dog on leash | |Familiar child enter house/yard | |

|Response to familiar dog off leash | |Stranger sudden approach | |

|Response to strange dog off leash | |Familiar person sudden approach | |

| | | | |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download